92 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



|Maik:b 3, 18§3, 



Very abundant iu Luke Ontario, and until artificially intro- 

 duced was unknown in Lake Eric. At the present Time, in 

 tbc spring and summer, the visitor who enters under the slv->et, 

 of water' at the tout of the falls will be astonished at the 

 mormons number of young eels crawling over the slippery 

 'I a ml squirming in' the seething whirlpools. An estimate 

 of hundreds of wagon loads, as seen in the course of the 

 perilous journey referred to. would hardly be considered ex- 

 cessive by those who have visited the spot'at a suitable seasou 

 of the year." 1 



ISTRODUCTIOiN OF EELS INTO NEW WATERS LN THE CXITED 

 STATES. 



Iu describing the geographical distribution of the eel it 

 was stated that it occurs in the rivers and along the ocean 

 ShoVea of North America. This being the case, as might be 

 supposed, there are many inland likes and streams of the 

 Uniled States in winch Ibis fish does not occur; for instance, 

 in the chain of great lakes above Niagara Falls and in the 

 upper waters of other streams in which there arc considerable, 

 obstructions. Tbe cutting of canals in various parts of the 

 country has, however, produced a great change in their dis- 

 tribution; for instance, it is stated by Mitchell* that eels 

 were unknown in the Passaic above the Great Falls until a 

 canal was cut at Patcrson, since which time they have be- 

 come plentiful in the upper branches of that river. They 

 have also been placed in many new localities by the agency 

 of man. Concerning this Mr.'Milner remarks: 



"The eel (Anyn.i"<> buii'inkiiHis). appreciated in some local- 

 ities and much ilifii d in o.thers, is another species that has 

 been frequently transplanted. It is pretty evident that it 

 never existed naturally iu the chain of great lakes any higher 

 up than Niagara, Falls, although .specimens have been taken 

 jn Lakes J3rie and Michigan. Their existence there is with 

 little doubt traceable to artificial transportation. 



"A captain oi a lake vassal informed me that it was epiite. 

 a. common thing some, .years ago to carry a quantity of live 

 'Is in a tub on the deck of a vessel while on Lake Ontario, 

 and they were often taken in this manner through the Wel- 

 land Canal. He said that it was a frequent occurrence on 

 his vessel, when they had become tired of them, or had pro- 

 cured better fishes, to turn the remainder alive into the waters 

 of Lake Erie. 



"In 1871 Mr. A. Booth, a large dealer of Chicago, had an 

 eel of four pounds weight sent him from the south end of 

 Lake Michigan, and a few weeks afterward a fisherman of 

 Ahnecpee. Wis. , nearly 200 miles to the northward, wrote 

 him that he had taken a few eels at that point. It was a 

 matter of interest to account for their presence, and a long 

 time afterward we learned that, some parties at Eaton Rapids, 

 Mich., on a tributary of the lake, had imported a number of 

 eels and put them in the stream at that place, from which 

 they had doubtless made their way to the points where they 

 were taken. The unfortunate aquarium-car, iu June, 1873, 

 by means of the accident that occurred at Elkkorn River, 

 released a number of eels into that stream, and about four 

 thousand were placed by the United States Commission in 

 the Calumet River at. South Chicago, 111., two hundred in 

 Dead River, Waukegan, 111., and three thousand eight hun- 

 dred in Fox River, Wisconsin." 3 



They have since been successfully introduced into Cali- 

 fornia. 



GrNTHER ON THE UIFE HABITS OF THE EEL. 



Concerning the life history of the eel much has been writ- 

 ten, and there have been many disputes even so late as 1880. 

 In lie: article upon Ichthyology, contributed to the "Eney- 



petlia Britannica," Gun'lher writes: 



"There is no group of fishes concerning the classification 

 and history of which there is so mnch doubt as the eel family; 

 an infinite number have been described, but most are so 

 badly characterized, or founded on individual or so trivial 

 characters, that the majority of the ichthyologists will reject, 

 them.'' 1 



!n hi '■ 'analogue i if ilip Fishes in the British Museum. Dr. 

 Gunther has claimed to retain those as species which are dis- 

 tinguished by such characters that they may be recognized, 

 though he remarks that he is by no rheans'certain whether 

 really specific value should be attached to them, remarking 

 that'the snout,, the form of the eyes, the width of the bands 

 of teeth, etc., arc evidently subject to much variation. In 

 his more recent work he remarks, ' •Some twenty-five species 

 of eels ore known from the coast waters of the temperate and 

 tropical zones. 



dareste's views. 



Other recent writers have cut the knot by combining all of 

 the eels into three or four, or even into one species, and it 

 seems as if no other course were really practicable, since the 

 different forms merge into one. another with almost imper- 

 ceptible gradations. In his monograph of the family of 

 Anguilla-formed fishes" M. C. M. Dareste remarks: 



"Dr. Gunther has recently published a monograph of the 

 apodal fishes, in which he begius the work of reducing the 

 number of specific types, The study of the ichthyological 

 collection of the Paris Museum, which contains nearly all of 

 Kaup's types, has given mo the opportunity of completing 

 the work begun by Dr. Guuther, and of striking from the 

 catalogue a large, number of nominal species which are 

 founded solely upon individual peculiarities. 



"flow are we to distinguish individual peculiarities from 

 the true specific characters? In this matter I have followed 

 the suggestions made with such great force by M. Siebold in 

 his History of the Fresh Water Fishes of Central Europe. 

 This accomplished naturalist, has shown that the relative pro- 

 portions of the different parts of the body and the head vary 

 considerably in fishes of the same species, in accordance with 

 certain physiological conditions, and that, consequently, they 

 are far from having the importance which has usually beeh 

 attributed to them in the determination of specific charac- 

 ters. 



"The study of a very large number of individuals of the 

 genera, Ootn/rr and Aiiguilla has fully convinced me of the 

 justice of this observation of Siebold'; for the extreme varia- 

 bility of proportions forbids us to consider them as f urnishing 

 troB specific characters, 



"I also think, with Siebold, that, albinism and melanism, 

 that is to say, the diminution of augmentation of the number 

 of ebromatophores, are only individual anomalies, and cannot 

 be ranked as specific characters. Risso long since separated 

 the black congers under the name of Muriona tdtjra. Kaup 

 describes as distinct species many black Anguillas. These 

 species should be suppressed. I have elsewhere proved the 

 frequent occurrence of melanism and albinism more or less 



pes. resulting from the 

 haraoters; but the study 



belonging to these four 

 each of these characters 

 insequently certain indi- 

 racters belonging to two 



i. ims note by Professor Batrd. 

 3, Transact om Lit 



, i ii .- - ira :.-■■! 



, i at, logue. ' ' ■ 



York, I., p. 48. 



nil., p, ■■] 



complete in nearly all the types of fishes belonging to this 

 fainT, i . f i iespee.alh interest m- siiu tlbimsm has hitherto 

 been "regarded as a very exceptional phenomenon in the 

 group oi' fishes. This also occurs in the Si/inhrnnchirhv. I 

 have, recently shown it in a .specimen of Monopterus from 

 Cochin China, presented to the museum by M. Goeffroy St. 

 Hilaire. 



"T must also signalize a new cause of multiplication of 

 species; it is partial or total absence of ossification in certain 

 individuals. This phenomenon, which may be explained as 

 a kind of vctcliifk (rickets), has not. to my knowledge, beeu 

 noticed: yet I have found it in a large number of specimens, 

 I had prepared the skeleton of a Conger of medium size, the 

 bones of which are flexible and have remained in an entirely 

 cartilaginous state. Still ills not, necessary to prepare the 

 skeleton to determine the absence of ossification, for we can 

 establish this easily in uuskinned specimens by the flexibility 

 of the ja.ws. It is very remarkable that this modification of 

 the. skeleton is not incompatible with healthy existence, anil 

 that, it does hot prevent, the iish iu which it is found from 

 attaining a very large size. 



"Those fishes in which ossification is absent are remarkable 

 lay reason of the great reduction of the number of teeth, which, 

 although the onfy parts which become hard by the deposit of 

 calcareous salts, remain, however, much smaller than in indi- 

 viduals whose skeletons are. completely ossified. 



"We can understand how much specimens could present 

 characters apparently specific, and that they should have been 

 considered by Kaup as typos of new species. These consider- 

 ations have led me to reduce, on an extensive scale, the num- 

 ber of species in the family. 



So, in the genus Auguilht; 1 find but, four species: Aiigidlla 

 vulgaris, occurring throughout the northern hemisphere, in 

 the new world as well as Hie. old. AiigniUu iiwnnontUi, and 

 A. vwwa of the Indian Ocean, and AngulUa mvgalodoma of 

 Oceaniea, 



"There are at least tour distir 

 combination of a certain numbe 

 of a very large number of speci 

 specific types has convinced me 

 may vary independently, and tl 

 viduals exhibit a combination oi _ 



distinct types. It is therefore impossible to establish clearly 

 defined barriers separating these four types. 



"The genus AnguUlu exhibits, then, a phenomenon which 

 is also found in many other genera, and even in the genus 

 Hi'iiio itself, and which can be explained in only two ways,: 

 Either these four forms have had a, common'origm, and 

 arc merely races, not species, or else they are distinct in 

 origin, anil are true species, but have been more or less in- 

 termingled, and have produced by their mingling interme- 

 diate forms Which coexist with those which were primitive. 

 Science is not iu the position to decide positively between 

 these alternatives," 



ancient beliefs concerning the reprodection of the 

 eel. 



The reproduction of the eel, continues Benecke, has been 

 'an unsolved riddle since the time of Aristotle, and has given 

 raise to the most wonderful conjectures and assertions. Leav- 

 ing out of question the old theories that the. eels are generated 

 from slime, from dew, from horse hair, from the skins of the 

 old eels, or from those of snakes ; and the question as to whether 

 they arc produced by the female of I he eel or by that of some 

 other species of fish", if has for centuries been a question of 

 dispute whether the eel is an egg-laying animal or whether it 

 produces its young alive; although Ibe fishermen believe that 

 they can tell the male and female eels by t he form of the snout. 

 A hundred years ago no man had ever found the sexual 

 organs in the" eel. 



Jaeoby has remarked that the eel was from the earliest 

 times a riddle to the Greeks; while ages ago it was known by 

 them at what periods all other kinds of fishes laid their eggs, 

 such discoveries were never made with reference to the eel, 

 though thousands upon thousands were yearly applied to 

 culinary uses. The Greek poets, following the usage of their 

 day, which was to attribute to Jupiter all children whose pa- 

 ternity was doubtful, were accustomed to say that Jupiter 

 was also progenitor of the eel. 



"When we bear in mind." writes Jacoby. "the veneration 

 in which Aristotle was held in ancient times. ; ,nd .still more 

 throughout the Middle Ages — a period of nearly two thou- 

 sand years — it could not be otherwise than that this wonder- 

 ful statement should be believed that it should be embellished 

 by numerous additional legends and amplifications, many of 

 "which have held their own. in the popular mind until the present 

 day. There is no animal concerning whose origin and exist- 

 ence there is such a number of false beliefs and ridiculous 

 fables. Some of these may be put aside as fabrications ; others 

 were, probaely, more or less true, but all the opinions con- 

 cerning the propagation of the eel may be grouped together 

 as errors into three, classes : 



"(I.) The beliefs which, in accordance with the description 

 of Aristotle, account for the origin of the eel not by their de- 

 velopment from the mud of the earth, but from slimy masses 

 which are found where the eels rub their bodies against each 

 other. This opinion was advanced by Pliny, by Atheme.us, 

 and by Oppian, and in the sixteenth ' century was again ad- 

 vocated by Rondtiet and reiterated by Conrad Gessncr. 



"(II.) Other authorities base I heir claims upon the occa- 

 sional discovery of worm like animals in the intestines of the 

 eels, which they described, with more or less zealous belief, 

 as the young eels, claiming that the eel should be considered 

 as an animal which brought forth its young alive, although 

 Aristotle in his day had pronounced this belief erroneous, and 

 very rightly had stated that these objects were probably in- 

 testinal worms. Those who discovered them anew had no 

 hesitation in pronouncing them ydung eels which were to be 

 born alive. This opiniou was first brought up in the. Middle 

 Ages in the writings of Albertus Magnus, and in the follow- 

 ing centuries by the zoologists Leuwenhoek, Eisner, lledi, 

 and Fa.hlberg; even Liunouis assented to this belief and 

 stated that the eel was viviparous. It is but natural lha,t, iiu 

 skilled observers, when the\ T open an eel, and find inside of it 

 a greater or smaller number of living creatures with elonga- 

 ted bodies, should be satisfied, without further observation, 

 that these are the young of the ,. v ] ; it may be distinctly 

 stated, however, that' in all rases whore eels oi' this sort have 



: n sientifiealiy investigated, they have been found to be 

 intestinal worms'." 



(tibia very strange thai am 



itniuim"!' Iu this <-,. in,-, ■:;■.!] the v 



Rostock, who mist t zoarces for an eel, ana 



the young, which he found alive ffitbin the body oi , 



embryo of the eel i.i:„-,e -, • ,-,-ay, p. 'At, he scat ■■ n, , ■ .., 



dwsenbed by Ebcrhnrcl was simply m intesiitial woi in. an error which 



will be manifest t0 :ii: v ' lm " ;l1 take (he pains to examju ■■> 



| figure. 



"(III.) The List group of error includes, the various suppo- 

 sitions that eels are bom not from eels, but from other fishes, 

 and even from animals which do not belong at all to the class 

 of fishes. Absurd as this supposition, which, in fact, was 

 contradicted by Aristotle, may seem, it, is found at the m snt 

 day among the eel-catchers iu many part 



Zodrces 

 i, owes 

 er, and 



T have 

 the 



"On 



' ,7> '/""'■ 

 to this i 

 similar 

 "In t 

 again convince! 



oast of Germany a fish related to th 

 brings its young living into til 

 nee its name Actlyvuti&if, or ee 

 i found on the coasl of Scandi 

 of Comaochio." continues .I.u 

 myself of the ineradicable beli 

 fishermen that the eel is born of other fishes; they point to 

 special differences in color, and especially in the common 

 mullet, Mugil rephalus, as the causes of variations in color 

 and form 'among eels. It is a very ancient belief, widely 

 prevalent to the present day, that, eels pair with water snakes. 

 In Sardinia the fishermen cling to the belief that a certain 

 beetle, I lie so-called water-beetle, Dytwctis Ronsda, is the 

 progenitor of eels, and they therefore call this 'mother 

 of eels.' " 



SEARCH FOI! ASD DISCOVERY OE THE FEMALE EEL. 



A scientific investigation into the generation of eels could 

 only begin when at the end of the Middle Ages, the prohibi- 

 tion which the veneration for Aristotle had thrown over the 

 investigations of learned men was thrown aside. With the 

 revival of the natural sciences in the sixteenth Century wo 

 find that investigators turned themselves with great zeal to 

 this special question, There are treatises upon the genera- 

 tion of the eel written by the most renowned investigators of 

 that, period, such as Rondelct, Salviani. end Ald'rovandi. 

 Nevertheless, this, like the following century, was burdened 

 with the memory of the numerous past opinions upon the eel 

 question, and with the supposed Undine; of young inside the 

 body or the eel. 



The principal supporters of the theory that the eel was 

 viviparous were Alburtus Magnus. Leuwenhoek, Eisner, 

 Kedi, and Fahlbcrg. The naturalists. Franz Redi and Chris- 

 tian Franz Paullmi, who lived in the seventeenth century, 

 nrasl be mentioned as the first who were of tire opinion, 

 founded, however, upon no special observations, that the 

 generation of the eel was in no respect different from that 

 of other fishes. 



In the eighteenth century it, was for the. first time main- 

 tained that the female organs of the eel could certainly be 

 recognized, It is interesting that the lake of Comacchio' was 

 the starting point for this conclusion as w r ell as for many of 

 the errors which had preceded it. The' learned surgeon. «m- 

 cassini, of Comacchio, visiting an eel fishery at, that place in 

 1707, found an eel with its belly conspicuously enlarged; ho 

 opened if and found an organ resembling an ovary, and, as it 

 appeared to him, ripe eggs. Thereupon lie sent his find, 

 properly preserved to his friend, the celebrated naturalist, 

 Valisneri, professor in the University of Padua, who examined 

 it carefully, aud finallyg to his own great delight, became 

 satisfied that he had found the ovaries of the eel. He fire- 

 pared an elaborate communication upon the subject, which 

 he sent to the Academy of Bologna.' 



At the very beginning there were grave questions raised as 

 to the correctness of this discovery. The principal anatomi- 

 cal authority at Bologna, Professor Valsalva, appears to have 

 shared these doubts, especially since shortly after that a sec- 

 ond specimen of eel, which presented the same appearance 

 as that, which was described by VtiHisneri, was sent from Co- 

 macchio to Bologna, The discussion continued, and it soon 

 came to fie regarded by the scientific men of Bologna as a 

 matter of extreme importance to find the true ovaries of the 

 eel. Piet.ro Molinelli offered to the fishermen of Comacchio 

 a valuable reward if they would bring him a, gravid eel. 

 In 1752 he received from a fisherman a living eel with its 

 belly much extended, which, when opened in the presence of 

 a friend, he found to lie filled with eggs. Unfortunately the 

 joyful hopes which had been excited by this fortunate dis- 

 covery were bitterly disappointed when it was shown that 

 the eel had been cunningly opened by" the fisherman and 

 tilled with the eggs of another fish. The eel question came 

 up again with somewhat more satisfactory results When, in 

 the year 1777, another eel was taken at ' Comacchio which 



th. 



vhidi 



M< 



i prec 



vho. 



pupil te 



a council at 

 illo Galvani, 

 xamined by 

 ■ to the one 



.•ears before. 



showed the same appearance i 

 it. This eel was received by Prole* 

 being indisposed and unable to ea 

 alone, sent a number of bis I'avnri 

 his house, among whom was the celc 

 the discoverer of galvanism. This eel was 

 them all and pronounced to be precisely simil 

 which had been described by VsUisneri seventy 

 It, was unanimously decided that this precious specimen 

 should be sent for exhaustive examination to the naturalist 

 Mondim, who applied himself with great zeal to the task, the 

 results of which were published in May. 1577. The paper is 

 entitled " Do Auguilke ovariis." ami was published] six years 

 later in the transactions of the Bologna Academy. Mondini 

 was satisfied that the supposed Jish which Yallisneri de- 

 scribed was nothing but the swimming bladder of the eel in 

 a diseased state, and that the bodies supposed to tic rgLrs were 

 simply posiules in thodiseascd tissue. In connection with this 

 opinion, however, Mi'tidini gave, ami illustrated by magnifi- 

 cent plates, a good description anil demonstration of the true 

 ovaries of tins eel, as found by himself. This work, which 

 in its beautiful plates illustrates also lite eggs in a magnified 

 fold of the ovary, must he regarded as classical work, and it 

 is an act of historic justice to state that neither O. P. Mi'tller 

 nor Kathke, but really Carlo Mondim was the first discov- 

 erer, deseriber aud demonstrator of thra female organs : 

 eel, which had been sought for so many centuries. : 



Three years litter, entirely independent: of Mondini, the 

 celebrated* zoologist. Otto Fried rich Midler, published his 

 discovery of the ovary of the eel in the " Proceedings of the 

 Society of .Naturalists." at Berlin. 



The discovery of Mondini was next, specially brought into 

 prominence through Lazzarro Spalhmzani. This renowned 

 investigator, in October, 1793, wehl from Pavia to the lagoons 

 of the ~Po, near Comacchio, for the sole purpose or there 

 studying the eel question, lie remained at Oomacchiq 

 through the autumn; lit; was. however, unable '" find anv- 

 thiug that was new regarding the question, but in the report 

 upon his jouniey of investigation he entirely threw aside 

 the discovery of Mondini, and announced thai the ovaries 

 discovered by this authority were simply fatty folds of the 

 lining of the stomach.' 1 



7 T tail to Had any reeurd of tie- , this pojier, except 



that given by Jacoby, -who states that it was printed at Venice, in 

 ITld, with a plate, and subsegueil ' n 17U', under the title Dl OV»1 

 Miiriun." in the prbceettillKS of the Leopold Aead.e; 



S O. F Midler. Heinuhiuieeii. ■■ ■ ,, h . , I h .inue-L. 



a la-ut. el B. Jfl'eolftni, ot Bologna and also Crivelli and i 



s i - '". , i" 1 i - ■-,,'- ■ d ei'tii.h- stated that 



priority of diseo^i , hi •■< ■■ << ■ 



